The Ohio Independent Baptist, March 1964

Jud 3 ' ' to ove _ Th B liefs of the New-Evangelicals By Rev . John E. Millheim Norwalk, Ohio . Tl1e B l ~ ~rt>1111,1 1\ , 1gnit1 cr1t artt le ai1pc,1reLl in the ( ... ,,r,st; t111 Life. 1n l arch f 1956 ~11t1tlcd. ..1 , - , ,1ng 11 , l Theol g)' l h.1ng111g'... pp. 16-19. ln th~1t article. eight trend. f cur- rent the logi al th tight f th ew ,anc."eli:al ,,ere 1ted. The, ar a ::, t 11 \\ · 1. friendlier attitude toward ') -· 3. 4. c1 nee . \\ illingne to re-e ' amine be– lief concerning the work of the Hol) pir1t. more tolerant attitude toward , 1 ar\ 1 ino view on e chatology. "' ::::, hift from o-called extreme di pen ationali m. 5 . A more definite recognition of ocial re pon ibility. 6. An increa ed empha i on schol– ar hip. 7 . A growing willingne of evang- . A re-opening of the ubjeot of Biblical in piration. elical theologian to conver e with liberal theologians. B. TJ1e Beliefs 1. Tlze creation of ,nan. a. The Case for Orthodox Theolo– gy , The Westminster Press, 1959, p. 95 . by Dr. Edward John Carnel. ··since orthodoxy bas given up the literal-day theory out of respect for geology, it would certainly forfeit no principle if it gave up the immediate creation theory out of respect for Paleontology. The two seem to be quite parallel ... if God was pleased to breathe H is image into a creature that had previously come from the dust, so be it." b. E1,·oli1tion and Christian Thought today , The Eerdmans Press, 1959, p. 69 Ed. by Russell L. Mixter. Walter R. H earn and R ichard A . Hendry conclude a chapter on "'The origin of life" with these words : ··The authors of this chapter con– sider the expressions of scripture re– garding the cr eation of life to be ufficiently figurative to imply little or no lim i tation on possible mechan- . '" isms . c. Journal of the American Scien- Page 8 MARCH, 1964 investigate t ti/ ic· ~4f/ili<1tio11, Jt1nc. 19(11, p. 4_ h\ Dr W a lter R. Hearn. ··... ,t1rcl) 1 we know tha,t proccs c, ha, c hccn involved in bringing 1,s in– to c i ~tencc. Why hudcler, then, a l the idea that procc e were involved in bringing dam into exi tence? Gran ted that we do not yet know de– tail of the proce e why may we not a ume that God did u e pro– ce e ?' ' d . Eter11i I)' , May 1960, p. 7 "Adam and Modern Science" by the late Donald Grey Barn– hou e. ' 'Mendel de Vrie and Morgan h ave bown how from the original adam , who, according to the Hebrew of the book of Genesi , was a red man, could come the mutation of black men, white men, yellow men, long bead , and round heads, slant eyes and straight eye , flat noses and pointed no es, all members of the pecie , Homo sapiens. I am ready (EDITOR' S NOTE: Th is message, " Moved to Investigate the Issues," was delivered by Rev. John E. Millheim, pastor of Calvary Bapt ist Church, Norwalk, Ohio, at the annual meet ing of the Oh io Assoc iation of Regular Baptist Chu rches at Toledo, Ohio, Nov. 17, 1963. Due to the many requests for the message in writt en form, we are pr inting it • • in the Ohio Inde pendent Baptist magazine . This is the second of a series of three articles.) to believe that such processes have been going on through several mil– lion years . And I accept the s tateme.nt of a young Christian anthropologist that true man, Homo sapiens, ha been on the earth for at leas t 180,000 years . ' e. On Jan. 16, 1963, I wrote a letter to Dr. Harold John Ockenga regarding a book that he wro 1 te entitled "Women who made Bible History ." I said in my letter: " Just recently, I obtained a copy of your book, "Women who 1nade Bible History'' and in chapter one and on page 13 you n1ade a statement with r espect to the creation of man, where you tated, As for man himself, al– though many theories may be ad– vanced as to primitive man, or pre– adamic man, yet the Bible clearly says that God created man at some point regardless of whether God used dust of the ground or whether He u sed . '' e issues II a11 an1n1al whom I-le h,1<l alrcacly created . . . ·oul tl yot1 please ex– plain lo me what yolt 1nean by thi · ~ la ten1en t." In an wcr to my letter, Dr . Ockcr1ga wrote to me on Feb. 12, 1963, thi reply: "A for my tatement in refer encc to the creation of man, I contend that it make no differ en ce whether God u ed literally an anthropomorphic handful of dust or whether He used ome creature already in existence when H e 'formed man of the dust of the ground.' Such creatures are dust of the ground and no more. As to God's ability to do either, I strongly affirm it. I hold that the Bible does not tell u what method He used but that He did create..." Dr. Loui Berkhof answers the ques tion tated in the Ockenga reply by a statement found in his System– atic Theology, 2nd ed. Eerdmans, 1941 , p. 184, where he states: ' 'Some theologians, in their eager– ness to harmonize the teachings of Scripture with the theory of evolu– tion, suggest that this may be inter– preted to mean that God formed the body of man out of ,the body of animals, which is after all but dust. But tJhi is entirely unwarranted, since no rea on can be assigned why the general expression 'of dust of the ground' should be used after the writer had already described the creation of the animals and might therefore have made the tatement far more ' specific. Moreover, thi interpretation is al o excluded by the statement in Genesis 3: 19. 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust 1lhou shalt return.' This certainly does not mean that man shall return again to his former ani– mal state. Beast and man alike return again to the dust. ' ' It is evident, as one sees just ,this brief treatment of some of the many tatements that can be produced re– garding the views of the New Evang– elical concerning the creation of Adam that they eem to shy away from the clear statement of the word of God on this subject. The next area that I want to de– velop for you concerning the beliefs of the ew Evangelical is that which deals with their concept of the in- THE OHIO INDEPENDENT BAPTIST